LETTER: Some more sinful thoughts about tax laws

Bob Morrison’s column, “A sinful tax law,” causes me to check out what I remember about Washington and taxes.

First, the wealthy top 1 percent gets a much larger voice in the decisions that are made regarding how the government spends.

The top 10 percent also pay more into the federal budget than the lower 90 percent of taxpayers, 39 percent to 29 percent, and much more than the lower 50 percent of taxpayers, 39 percent to 3 percent.

Social Security gets the lion’s share of tax revenue from the lower 99 percent. The lower 50 percent provides most of the military’s recruits.

About 57 percent of voters who could vote do vote. Not voting is a sure way to be left out and hurts us all.

Looking at the wealthy and elections, the biggest spender most often wins followed by grand contributions to the winner to pay off his or her campaign debt. Contributions to the campaign after an election are contributions but are not regarded as important. Campaign suppliers often allow charges against candidate’s accounts, especially if he appears to be winning. Campaigns may live on until the next election, thus you have money coming in as the requests for legislation are lobbied. Charities are another favored place to fund politician name recognition.

The result is that elected officials always take care of their contributors more than their voters.

Have you ever considered the long-term cost of the rising national debt and the people behind it? Will a corporate tax break of, say, $4,000,000 honestly result in an economic investment that pays for it in tax revenue going back into the federal budget? Such political rhetoric is historically wishful thinking.

The best analysis shows less than half of a tax reduction in federal income resulting from investment in job-creating business. That means more federal debt. Modern corporate investment usually favors fewer employees and more automation. Investment in better, smarter machines requiring less labor are most favored while start-ups and expansions employing large numbers of middle-class employees are less favored.